Researcher profile

Eric D. Ragan

Eric D. Ragan contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
6works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

An Empirical Study on the Relationship Between the Number of Coordinated Views and Visual Analysis

Coordinated Multiple views (CMVs) are a visualization technique that simultaneously presents multiple visualizations in separate but linked views. There are many studies that report the advantages (e.g., usefulness for finding hidden relationships) and disadvantages (e.g., cognitive load) of CMVs. But little empirical work exists on the impact of the number of views on visual anlaysis results and processes, which results in uncertainty in the relationship between the view number and visual anlaysis. In this work, we aim at investigating the relationship between the number of coordinated views and users analytic processes and results. To achieve the goal, we implemented a CMV tool for visual anlaysis. We also provided visualization duplication in the tool to help users easily create a desired number of visualization views on-the-fly. We conducted a between-subject study with 44 participants, where we asked participants to solve five analytic problems using the visual tool. Through quantitative and qualitative analysis, we discovered the positive correlation between the number of views and analytic results. We also found that visualization duplication encourages users to create more views and to take various analysis strategies. Based on the results, we provide implications and limitations of our study.

preprint2020arXiv

A Human-Grounded Evaluation Benchmark for Local Explanations of Machine Learning

Research in interpretable machine learning proposes different computational and human subject approaches to evaluate model saliency explanations. These approaches measure different qualities of explanations to achieve diverse goals in designing interpretable machine learning systems. In this paper, we propose a human attention benchmark for image and text domains using multi-layer human attention masks aggregated from multiple human annotators. We then present an evaluation study to evaluate model saliency explanations obtained using Grad-cam and LIME techniques. We demonstrate our benchmark's utility for quantitative evaluation of model explanations by comparing it with human subjective ratings and ground-truth single-layer segmentation masks evaluations. Our study results show that our threshold agnostic evaluation method with the human attention baseline is more effective than single-layer object segmentation masks to ground truth. Our experiments also reveal user biases in the subjective rating of model saliency explanations.

preprint2020arXiv

A Multidisciplinary Survey and Framework for Design and Evaluation of Explainable AI Systems

The need for interpretable and accountable intelligent systems grows along with the prevalence of artificial intelligence applications used in everyday life. Explainable intelligent systems are designed to self-explain the reasoning behind system decisions and predictions, and researchers from different disciplines work together to define, design, and evaluate interpretable systems. However, scholars from different disciplines focus on different objectives and fairly independent topics of interpretable machine learning research, which poses challenges for identifying appropriate design and evaluation methodology and consolidating knowledge across efforts. To this end, this paper presents a survey and framework intended to share knowledge and experiences of XAI design and evaluation methods across multiple disciplines. Aiming to support diverse design goals and evaluation methods in XAI research, after a thorough review of XAI related papers in the fields of machine learning, visualization, and human-computer interaction, we present a categorization of interpretable machine learning design goals and evaluation methods to show a mapping between design goals for different XAI user groups and their evaluation methods. From our findings, we develop a framework with step-by-step design guidelines paired with evaluation methods to close the iterative design and evaluation cycles in multidisciplinary XAI teams. Further, we provide summarized ready-to-use tables of evaluation methods and recommendations for different goals in XAI research.

preprint2020arXiv

Don't Explain without Verifying Veracity: An Evaluation of Explainable AI with Video Activity Recognition

Explainable machine learning and artificial intelligence models have been used to justify a model's decision-making process. This added transparency aims to help improve user performance and understanding of the underlying model. However, in practice, explainable systems face many open questions and challenges. Specifically, designers might reduce the complexity of deep learning models in order to provide interpretability. The explanations generated by these simplified models, however, might not accurately justify and be truthful to the model. This can further add confusion to the users as they might not find the explanations meaningful with respect to the model predictions. Understanding how these explanations affect user behavior is an ongoing challenge. In this paper, we explore how explanation veracity affects user performance and agreement in intelligent systems. Through a controlled user study with an explainable activity recognition system, we compare variations in explanation veracity for a video review and querying task. The results suggest that low veracity explanations significantly decrease user performance and agreement compared to both accurate explanations and a system without explanations. These findings demonstrate the importance of accurate and understandable explanations and caution that poor explanations can sometimes be worse than no explanations with respect to their effect on user performance and reliance on an AI system.

preprint2020arXiv

Soliciting Human-in-the-Loop User Feedback for Interactive Machine Learning Reduces User Trust and Impressions of Model Accuracy

Mixed-initiative systems allow users to interactively provide feedback to potentially improve system performance. Human feedback can correct model errors and update model parameters to dynamically adapt to changing data. Additionally, many users desire the ability to have a greater level of control and fix perceived flaws in systems they rely on. However, how the ability to provide feedback to autonomous systems influences user trust is a largely unexplored area of research. Our research investigates how the act of providing feedback can affect user understanding of an intelligent system and its accuracy. We present a controlled experiment using a simulated object detection system with image data to study the effects of interactive feedback collection on user impressions. The results show that providing human-in-the-loop feedback lowered both participants' trust in the system and their perception of system accuracy, regardless of whether the system accuracy improved in response to their feedback. These results highlight the importance of considering the effects of allowing end-user feedback on user trust when designing intelligent systems.

preprint2020arXiv

SplitStreams: A Visual Metaphor for Evolving Hierarchies

The visualization of hierarchically structured data over time is an ongoing challenge and several approaches exist trying to solve it. Techniques such as animated or juxtaposed tree visualizations are not capable of providing a good overview of the time series and lack expressiveness in conveying changes over time. Nested streamgraphs provide a better understanding of the data evolution, but lack the clear outline of hierarchical structures at a given timestep. Furthermore, these approaches are often limited to static hierarchies or exclude complex hierarchical changes in the data, limiting their use cases. We propose a novel visual metaphor capable of providing a static overview of all hierarchical changes over time, as well as clearly outlining the hierarchical structure at each individual time step. Our method allows for smooth transitions between tree maps and nested streamgraphs, enabling the exploration of the trade-off between dynamic behavior and hierarchical structure. As our technique handles topological changes of all types, it is suitable for a wide range of applications. We demonstrate the utility of our method on several use cases, evaluate it with a user study, and provide its full source code.